"[Sadam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
— Secretary Colin L. Powell in Cairo, Egypt on February 24, 2001
Why did we attack Iraq again?
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Via Killing Goliath, which covers the subject in more depth.
Something tells me Colin doesn't quite know. Quite frankly, every time I hear him speak I always imagine him thinking, "How did I get myself into this?"
And this is the same Greg who gave me a hard time for going to a pre-war Peace Rally in New York City?
Mitch, I give you a hard time for eating eggs at breakfast.
I forget. How 'bout we spend 87 billion more to find out?
I dunno. Let's spend 87 billion more to find out.
Changing your tune, eh? Now you LIKE eggs for breakfast! I knew it!
Where's Boysen when you need him?
Some more details on what $87M gets you now posted at Killing Goliath by the inimitable RC.
Thanks, Tom.
I'm not comfortable defending the war, but the issue if fairly complicated. Perhaps Bush knew that the WMD issue wasn't a sure thing, but he had other unstated reasons for getting rid of Saddam. Perhaps regional stability and anti-terrorism reasons. But he knew that what would sell the war was WMD, so that's what he gave as a public reason. Just because there are no WMD does not mean that there was no reason for it. And anyone who thinks the reason was primarily financial (or oil driven) lacks understanding of the issue.
Good question :)
Longest comment ever:
Why did America attack Iraq?
James is right (however condescending in his attitude), it was not just about oil or money. As Colin Powell is making abundantly clear, it was also not about any imminent threat Saddam posed to America, his neighbors, or his flimsy connections to Islamist extremist terrorist organizations. Saddam's secular Iraq was an affront to the Islamist fundamentalism, and was a mortal enemy of the closest incarnation of an Islamist theocracy in Iran. America did not attack Iraq because of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or connections to al Qaeda, or for violating U.N. sanctions, or because Saddam was generally a very bad guy. Then why?
Because a convergence of factors made attacking Iraq seem like a rare and anointed opportunity to score big wins in several areas simultaneously. An opportunity that might never present itself again, and an opportunity with a time-factor. The planets were aligning, at least in the Wolfowitz-Rumsfielf-Cheney universe, which is the universe that Bush, Powell, Condi Rice and all seekers of power in Washington must live within. When you are a faith-based, believer-in-destiny decision maker, killing 8 birds with one stone is hard to pass up. It's your duty and destiny --- or it becomes pretty easy to convince yourself that it is.
What were the separate factors that converged to make an Iraq attack an irresistible idea?
1) September 11th: America and the Bush presidency changed that day, and we all were witness to the power and will of an America united in a common cause and patriotic groundswell of emotionalism. It was also plain that justice was due, somehow, some way ... The American public were going to demand that there be payback. Substantial payback. Let's kick some ass payback. If the administration on watch during this tragedy couldn't come up with some form of impressively demonstrable ass-kicking then it's days were numbered. Not since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had the American public demanded military action. Getting support for the overt use of force is usually a huge and difficult hurdle to any administration's military ambitions, engendering complex covert activities and baby steps. 9-11 handed the Bush administration pre-approved support for kicking ass first and taking names later. As long as the kickees had mustaches and Arab-sounding names the average American was not going to be too picky, a fact that the Bush administration was clearly aware of.
2) The Wolfowitz factor: For his entire professional career, intellectual rightist Paul Wolfowitz has been doing detailed thinking and writing on how America can best maintain it's position of world dominance achieved post WWII. In Wolf-speak, "We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."(a) Foundational to this philosophy is a belief that American principals are THE principals that the world adopt, that our nation's concepts of economic systems, freedoms, separation of church and state, representative democracy, etc. are superior to all other political-social systems. Any red-blooded American will have no problem sharing this opinion --- that the way we do it is the best and most efficient form of nation-state yet evolved. This has a special resonance with those Americans who believe that this country is blessed or anointed by God to spread a certain set of values across the globe. Of special note however, should be a keen awareness that a commitment to 'extending' this 'international order' puts us on a collision course with Islamist fundamentalism, a movement with an uncannily similar faith in the superiority of its moral principals and their responsibility to extend its numbers of believers and free non-believers from the oppression of their current philosophies. Islamist fundamentalism is currently experiencing exponential international mindshare growth in the world's most populous regions: the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Eurasia, and Africa. Also note: central to the Wolfowitz philosophy is an America with a willingness to use force unabashedly, an America empowered by "military strength and moral clarity."(b) Wolfowitz gave Iraq special consideration as a potential 'lead domino' in his now infamous 'Reverse Domino Theory' --- theorizing that the establishment of an exemplar Westernized, Americanized nation in the Arab world would, by it's shining example, lead to citizen groundswells of democracy and the toppling of all the other corrupt, tyrannous, oppressive, dictatorships and theocracies in the region. Gotta start somewhere, and Iraq had multiple ticks in the 'choose me' column: a shameless, ruthless, war-criminal dictator who was universally despised; a secular society already familiar with Western institutions and systems; abundant natural resources that could be used towards the development of a new, mature nation-state; a long history of U.N. violations, military aggression, and easily-argued dangerousness.
3) All great presidents have seen America through War. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt. If you want a monument you better go win a war and make it a big one. "You're a President of destiny, George... " You can almost hear Cheney whispering in his ear in hushed, reverent tones.
4) That Saddam guy threatened to kill Daddy, and in Texas you get your ass-kicked for that.
5) Republican oil, infrastructure, and contractor industry cronies will make gazillions rebuilding a nation the size of Iraq. Then they can pour dough back into the National Republican Party and whatever interest groups the administration tells them to. It's not about oil, it's about oil, natural gas, hydro-electricity, transportation systems, cargo delivery, energy management, and more. Hey France and Germany, bet you'd like some of these rebuilding contracts, eh? Fat chance!
6) The War on Terror. Oh yeah, almost forgot about that one. Doesn't matter who's ass we're kicking --- as long as we scare the bejeesus out of people they'll think twice about fucking with us next time. Won't they?
7) Bush in 2004. The American people are notoriously reticent about changing presidents when there is a crisis or war ongoing. That war in Afghanistan (where?) was over way too fast and kicking ass on Toyota pickup trucks was hardly even sporting. Solution: Start a bigger war! Keep it going a bit this time. Win it quick but keep the 'war mentality' going up to the elections. No one likes to 'change horse mid-stream' or so goes the tired cliché.
8) Other. I'm sure there are other reasons. Probably dozens locked up in classified memos and discussed by men in grey suits over expensive lunches.
Does this make it okay that the adminstration lied it's way into war?
(a) Statement of Principles
(b) Ibid.
As I learn more about the political/economic incentives to start this bloody war on Iraq I can't help but feel insulted by the way it was sold to us.
Why is the cleaning up of Iraq looking like Afganistan.
Why are we now meeting and having discussions with world leaders if the UNs oppinion was of no real interest to us.
For a war that has had years of possible planning why are we now asking for help. ( After slaging France off like they were the blooming enemy)
When did we become so arrogant.
I know one thing. Since moving to this country from England, Americans have prided themselves on recollecting Boston TeaParty stories to me. Good for you guys in giving the brits the finger. Do you think it's time for another brew?
Did I sound especially condescending? I didn't call ignorant people morons or idiots or anything, I just said that they didn't understand the issue.
Because we ran out of footage of our troops raising our flags over conqured, erh, freed areas!
I think we understand that Clinton was hung on the cross for lying about sexual relations. Bush lied to us about Iraq's potential threat to the safety of the United States and we've done nothing about it.
We understand that Bush should be impeached just as Clinton was for not telling us the truth. Oil, peace, money, whatever, we shoud have never invaded Iraq.
You Californians are impeachment happy.
the only answer to that question that i can come up with is:
because we could, damn it!
everyone should also immediately forward the current "this modern world" and "thadeus and weez" to their congressman and senator.
9/29
>Where's Boysen when you need him?
It's good know I'm thought of.
Everyone understands (or at least, needs to) that our opinions are shaped by what we see and hear. I love the famous quotes; "We are all actively becoming that which we most intently observe." Not so much, we are what we eat, but rather we are what we observe.
That tells me that Conservative people get their info from Conservative sources and Liberal people from Liberal sources. Each makes the consumer more strident in their views. (This is a general rule, of course.)
Right now, there is more input (from multiple sources) that Bush apparently lied. But if you go back to the quote, he didn't state this point definitively. People are asserting he did, but he didn't. In fact, what he was doing was citing the British intel. Now, how he did it and with what intent is truly up for speculation.
I believe that he, as did the President (Clinton) before him, believed that Saddam did have WMD in one form of completion or another. He thought it a worthwhile risk to find out and remove the potential for further harm (post-9/11) to his country, on his watch.
I would not be so bold to say those other facets that Tom Dolan outlined didn't play a role in his thinking. (Other than the comment about Oil which is blindly reiterated without a reasonable base or logic component.) I'm sure he did consider his "legacy", something Clinton and most Presidents do. I'm sure he did consider the almost eternal strife in the Middle East and how a reformed Iraq could improve upon that situation.
Everyone needs to remember the war wasn't a binary event. There wasn't a single reason. I'm not wholly sure going to war was a good thing. It was most evidently a calculated risk. But I prefer to be an optimist. America has done away with a most assuredly evil dictator and removed sufferings from thousands of lives. It did, however, come at a painful cost.
Only God can calculate the Cost-Benefit Analysis on this one.
Paul Krugman in today's NYTimes says 'oil comment' sentiment even better: "Iraq's reconstruction ... remains firmly under White House control. And this is an administration of, by and for crony capitalists; to match this White House's blithe lack of concern about conflicts of interest, you have to go back to the Harding administration. That giant, no-bid contract given to Halliburton, the company that made Dick Cheney rich, was just what you'd expect."
The operative phrase is War Profiteering.
The operative phrase in these comments is..... Aw man, there's just too many frickin' phrases here.
It'd be inaccurate to say that Paul Krugman or The Times is truly objective, so take his comments with a grain of salt. Or in your case, you can leave off the salt. ;^)
"Why did we attack Iraq again?"
First off Greg, love the site and your openess to debate.
Second, I think the reason we attacked Iraq was simple: Non-compliance. After 9-11, the US started taking out "insurance policies". Afghanistan was another.
If Saddam complied in the last 12 years, this wouldnt of happened. He didnt. UN weapons inspectors will tell you that. Neither did the Taliban when asked to turn over Bin Laden....and they knew where he was. The blame squarely rests on them.
While I dont agree with all of President Bush's policies, I do believe that two hornets nests have been removed. So far, we have yet to see another 9-11. Hopefully we wont any time soon. I think some of that can be attributed to what has gone down.
Again, love your site and we can agree to disagree. Just thought I would comment. Yeah, strange right? This coming from a Republican Web Designer.=)
laters
c
Interesting that Conservatives feel the need to almost apologize for their viewpoints, especially given that one of the Liberal mantras is tolerance. Political correctness is an insidious beast.
> Right now, there is more input (from multiple sources) that Bush apparently lied.
Depends on the what "lied" means.
Good to have you back, Boysen.
...Frickin' phrases.
How about "lies" meaning saying something you know isn't true (see Colin Powell commentary that launced this thread). Even more specifically, how about "lies" meaning saying something you think your audience will believe when the real reason for doing something is quite different, more complex, and likely to not be as well-received. How's that?
Maybe the Republican web designer can comment about Why Iraq vs Why not Korea?
Hey RC
Sure thing. All of these decisions, i.e. going to war/not going to war/sanctions/etc, are based on a whole gamut of reasons and circumstances. There is not one cookie cutter mold for reacting to threats. If there were, then we would be massively building up troops and moving our fleets to Korea.
Korea is a whole different beast. They also have a "unique" way of communicating. When they want some help, they dont say "Please America, help." They say "You'll lose a few cities in a nuclear attack." That is how they have always operated. The Bush administration, like every administration before it, knows this and understands how to deal with them. Personally, I think they are dealing with them correctly. You don't give money to N. Korea for not doing something bad. Thats like my Dad paying me to stay off drugs. "Well, Jr hasnt been on drugs lately so heres a 100 bucks."
The US has also done a good job in bringing international pressure on them and its working. Its bringing them to the table. BUT, if it got to the point where they were clearly not talking, still threatening and continued to isolate themselves from working with others....you can bet those stealth bombers we moved to South Korea and Japan will be on the runway with target lists.
Again though, I could be wrong, but North Korea = Big talkers that have no money or resources to actually go forth with a war they constantly threaten us with.
Its like the play "The Mouse That Roared". In it, I think its Lichtenstein that declares war on the US cause they have no money and know that once we did them in, we would help them rebuild like Germany and Japan. (now also Iraq and Afghanistan) Now here, Korea might be a little bigger than a mouse. Maybe we call it "The Mangy Rat That Roared"
Just my side
c
C - That's a self-comforting attitude towards North Korea, which would be nice if true. The truth is it's fairly impossible to say, but it's likely that N. Korea is as passionately hateful towards the U.S. as is the most strident Islamist terrorist. We bombed the county into the stone age (GOP ref for ya) in the 50's, and the county has been inbred with 50+ years of anti-American fervor that rivals anything seen in Middle East. God help us if the W administration looks at the issue in as simplistic terms as you do — as they probably do.
From reading his comments, it seems to the casual reader that for Tom Dolan all problems are due to Republicans.
Rather than merely call Charles' comments simplistic (which is due in part to the nature of this medium; too much work to produce a 5000-word essay) it'd be helpful to your cause to cite reasons why you think North Korea is the major threat you apparently make them out to be. You do understand their pathetic fiscal situation, correct?
Boysen, you're reading a bit too casually. All problems are not due to, caused by, or even exacerbated by the good old G.O.P. I'm pretty much an equal opportunity mud-slinger and certainly the Dem's have done a good job at behaving as detestably, insincerely, and incompetently over the last few decades. The similarities between the parties pretty much outweigh the differences at this point.
But, back to Korea, and an effort to return to the theme of the post that started this comment avalanche. Note, I'm not condending they are a major threat, but I'm wondering why Iraq was sold as one and NK isn't. It's less about the threat and more about the administration being lying dogs. That said, the Korea articled linked above just raises one major question that I'm sure we'll hear discussed over and over: North Korea has weapons of mass destruction. No inspections needed, no question about non-compliance or deceit. If one member of the 'Axis of Evil' has WMD, doesn't it seem a bit strange to attack another Axis member because they might?
Boysen is right. I wouldnt have the time to write a book on what are the differences with N. Korea. I trust the CIA, NSA, etc to do all that and give the intel to the Pres.=)
N. Korea has been sold has a threat. We all have heard about it. All over the news. How they shoot their mouths off every day.
No, actually, I dont think it seems a bit strange at all. Its called strategy. With Iraq, the US took out their own insurance policy and got rid of an idiot and tyrant. Plain and simple. The mistake I think Bush made was saying it was all about WMD. To me, he could of just said this guy has got to go. Lying dogs? What did they lie about? Did the Clinton administration LIE as well when they said the same thing President Bush said about Iraq? Did weapon inspectors who were booted out of the country LIE LIKE DOGS when they said he was not complying and was hiding things? Did the UN LIE when they said the same things about Iraq? Cause if Bush lied, then so did Clinton, Kofi Annan, the whole UN security council, all the inspectors, etc. Funny you only mention Bush. Here comes that balanced attack I guess.=)
Oh well, there is my "simple" statement
c
C, please don't leap to the assumption that I think the Bush administration has a monopoly on lying — they've just been unusually blatant, clumsy, and offensive about it. Perhaps the British lap dog will be called on the carpet for it before anyone in Washington. But just to review, please compare the following with Greg's Colin Powell quote that kicks off this thread:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." (Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002).
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." (George W. Bush, September 12, 2002).
"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." (Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002).
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." (Ari Fleischer, January 9, 2003).
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." (George W. Bush, January 28, 2003).
"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." (Colin Powell, February 5, 2003).
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." (George Bush February 8, 2003).
"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not." (Colin Powell, March 8, 2003).
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." (George Bush, March 18, 2003).
"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." (Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003).
Good post and factually based. But remember, all this was built upon years of intel from Clinton and before. Before the war started, if you asked anyone, on either side of the aisle, whether or not Iraq had WMD or chemical weapons, the polls all showed that most said he did. At that point, the difference between the parties was:
Bush: Let's go take care of the threat.
Democrats: Let's do more intel gathering and diplomacy.
Evidence of the chemical weapons is as easily found and the mass graves. Perhaps, the war derailed the building up of WMDs?
What gets me about the Democrats is that they're so fiercely partisan. Rather than behaving constructively, 9 times out of 10 is redicule this, belittle that; put down and debase. Rather than a donkey, they sound more like a parrott that only has only one phrase.
For the record, I hate the lying too and Bush is far from a great President, in my book.
More from CBS on the lying. Didn't that other lying dog, Bill Clinton, get impeached for misleading a Congressional inquiry? What should misrepresenting justification for an agreesive pre-emptive war get you? Jail time anyone? I'm hoping we see the whole lot frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs but I won't hold my breadth.
The public beta of Central had a mixed review today. But people were talking about it everywhere. (see links on Mike's blog).
We can't add new apps yet, and there is no information on how to go about building one. After all the hype and waiting around, this is definitely an anticlimax. Not because it isn't a good product - I'm sure it's wonderful, but because it is us, the developers, who will make it interesting. When all you have to look at cinema listings and weather reports (from another country), its hard to get too excited.
Klitoris
http://www.klitoris.ca